|
Slough and skulduggery in high places |
 |
 |
 |
|
Written by Nick Seaton
|
|
Monday, 29 June 2009 21:57 |
It would be difficult to imagine a worse act of educational vandalism than is currently being carried out in Slough. Obviously, its perpetrators know that: almost without exception, their names are kept hidden from the public.
Plans by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), the Catholic Church and Slough Borough Council to merge – or 'federate' to use official jargon – St Bernard's Catholic Grammar School and St Joseph's Catholic High School (a secondary modern) have been proceeding in secret for some time.
As would be expected of a grammar school, St Bernard's produces excellent results: 99% of its pupils achieve 5 or more grade A*-C GCSEs including English and maths. St Joseph's, by contrast, only has 36% of its pupils reaching this level.
Opponents of grammar schools will argue that no more can be expected from St Joseph's after the grammar schools have creamed off the brightest pupils. But if that were true, why does another Slough secondary modern, The Westgate School, have 53% of its pupils achieving 5 or more grade A*-C GCSEs including English and maths? This, it should be noted, is above the national average for all types of school, which is less than 48%.
The disgraceful events in Slough are documented in a series of emails obtained by St Bernard's parents under the Freedom of Information Act.
On 12 May 2008, a meeting between officials, all of whose names are redacted (blacked out), emphasised the DCSF's ground rules: 'New school buildings'; 'A single school on one site'; 'Priorities for admissions to be based on Catholic children'; and 1,500 pupils with 7 forms of entry. Someone whose name has been blanked out (presumably the head of one of the schools involved) 'has briefed his governors about a potential future development without being specific about the nature of it.' The other head (name redacted), 'will brief his governors using the same cautious wording.' Another nameless official 'is waiting for legal advice on the position with both schools and whether there has to be a parental ballot' to close St Bernard's Grammar School (or interfere with its admission arrangements).
Meanwhile, 'Discussion [is] embargoed until confirmation of statement of intent.' An update on the legal situation notes: 'My advice from a colleague in the Academies Policy Team is that the Governors can propose to close the School(s) and propose with the Diocese to open a new one ...So it looks like no ballot.' Significantly however, 'we should double check this'.
Other significant emails include:
14 July 2008: from a DCSF official to an LA official (all names redacted): 'We need a proposal from you and the Diocese which we can then take to Andrew Adonis.' Adonis is obviously fully informed about what his officials are doing and how: 'You will recall how carefully Andrew wanted the proposal to be announced.'
31 July 2008: from a DCSF official to numerous other officials (all names redacted). Following 'a meeting with Lord Adonis and the Slough MP Fiona McTaggert... LA officers have been considering his advice that a 7fe 11-18 academy could be established...The clear preference is to use the St Joseph's site but it is necessary to win the support of the Diocese and the Heads, given the emotional attachment to St Bernard's and its history.' (St Bernard's was founded more than a century ago.) There is also a need to help heads 'to understand the vision'.
6 October 2008: an email on the subject of 'Slough Catholic Academy'.
27 October 2008 is when an LA official notifies her colleagues and DCSF officials (all names redacted) that she has 'found out about' the St Bernard's parents' meeting on 19 November and remarks that 'people think we have all the plans in place and are not showing our hand.' 'This must happen with other academies' and 'There may also be the grammar school factor in this particular situation.' A DCSF official (name redacted) responds by asking if local authority (LA) officials will be present at the parents' meeting.
By 30 October 2008, emails were being sent directly to PS (Permanent Secretary?), Adonis, and copied to Paul Schofield (DCSF/Office of the Schools Commissioner) and other DCSF officials (all names redacted).
6 January 2009: a DCSF official suggests to an LA official (names redacted) that 'it would be useful to set up a meeting with the Diocese, LA, schools – Heads and Chairs of Governors in the near future.' 'It would [also] be extremely useful to have someone from the Academies division'. (The significance of this is that these officials are all planning together. But by excluding the full governing bodies of the schools concerned from initial discussions, they are acting against official governor guidance and doing something that may, possibly, be illegal.)
On 29 January 2009, a DCSF official emailed an LA official (names redacted) to say: 'Jim Knight [schools minister] considered this yesterday and was in favour. He asked whether it could open in 2010, rather than 2011. What do you think?'
On 9 February 2009, DCSF officials were telling LA officials (all names redacted) that they 'want to take it to [schools minister] Jim Knight again' and need to be able to justify 2011 or find a way round admissions for 2010.' This is because 'guarantees have already been provided to parents... regarding Grammar school education'. In other words, parents of children at St Bernard's and prospective parents who have chosen the school have, by implication, chosen a grammar school education for their children – an option that is now to be withdrawn by politicians, their officials, and the Catholic Church. 'The Admissions Forum are already considering...'
13 February 2009: a DCSF official reassures an LA official (all names redacted) that 'colleagues here in the Academies Policy Team... have confirmed for me that we do not publish Statement of Intent letters on any of our websites'.
The conspiratorial nature of these activities mirrors almost exactly what happened 3 years ago when Boston Grammar School and Boston High School in Lincolnshire were 'federated' and had their places for 11-year-olds reduced (see http://www.cre.org.uk/news/newsletter_06_3.html. And more at www.ngsa.org.uk).
So what should happen now? Politicians are ultimately responsible. They should be asking:
- If these plans are supported by parents, why the need for official, anti-democratic secrecy?
- What objective (or any other) evidence is there that the pupils of St Bernard's or St Joseph's will benefit from these changes, or that they will raise standards?
- What right have politicians such as Lord Adonis, their officials, or headteachers or governors, or indeed the Catholic Church, to undermine good schools such as St Bernard's? Or to demoralise parents and disrupt children's education as witnessed by these emails?
To discuss this article, join our mailing list. |
|
Last Updated on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 23:36 |